As recently as three months ago, it appeared the establishment of casinos in Massachusetts was a foregone conclusion.

The initiative to create three large-scale casino resorts for the state was introduced and championed by recently-elected Democratic Gov. Patrick Deval, who wanted to use license and tax proceeds from the gaming properties to plug a projected state budget shortfall. It appeared, at least initially, that support for the measure was growing in the Democrat-controlled state legislature, especially because it filled a budget hole without having to raise taxes on a large majority of state citizens. A poll of 500 Massachusetts adults conducted by the Boston Globe showed 53 percent in support of casino expansion against only 34 percent opposed. The Patrick casino plan was backed by powerful local unions such as AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Massachusetts Teacher’s Association.

Indeed, the gaming industry thought the casino-enabling measure far enough along that representatives from Las Vegas Sands, Wynn Resorts, Harrah’s Entertainment, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods were reportedly scouring the state for potential gaming resort sites.

Yet, when the Patrick casino measure finally came to a late March vote in the Massachusetts House after a six-hour debate, it was tabled for further study by a 108-46 margin, essentially killing any chance of it passing this year.

At first glance, the failure of the Patrick casino plan appears to have come primarily from the hands of one man: House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi. A long-time casino gaming opponent, DiMasi reportedly politicked behind the scenes to make sure the government committee overseeing the bill voted against it, 10-8, just days before it was to be brought to the House floor for a general debate and vote — all but insuring its defeat.

DiMasi, during a press conference, called the vote a victory for the people of Massachusetts over “big money special interests.” He said House members “withstood incredible pressure from the deep-pocketed gambling industry, unions and the governor’s office.”

Patrick had a different view of the events. “It’s disappointing, but not surprising,” he told the Boston Globe after the House floor vote. “The process — given the midnight maneuvers last night, and backing and forthing today — speaks for itself.”

However, identifying DiMasi and a political power struggle between him and Patrick as the sole cause of the casino bill’s defeat would be disingenuous. There is plenty of blame to go around for the measure’s demise, ranging from Patrick misreading the gaming support in his own party in the state legislature to the actual casino bill itself, which failed to include provisions for the state’s racing industry and to adequately spell out how gaming proceeds would be allocated. It also did not help that the week before the vote, questions arose about Patrick’s claims on the number of jobs and annual revenue casinos would bring to the state.

The one silver lining for the gaming industry in this situation is that it appears casino expansion is not a dead issue in Massachusetts. The state’s racing industry will likely push for a slots-at-tracks initiative. It is also probable that pro-gaming legislators will seek a referendum on casino expansion for the fall ballot, to let state voters voice their opinion on the issue. Finally, as the budget gap looms, it is likely casino legalization will be considered again by the state legislature, considering the support it has among certain politicians, unions and the general populace.

“Politics is patience and perseverance,” Harrah’s Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jan Jones told the Boston Herald. “It doesn’t mean it will change this year or next year, but it doesn’t mean the opportunity won’t present itself again.”